New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1887-12-15
DlPTJS1N PROHIBITION

"Non partisan Prohibition means non en-
forced Prohibition" affirm the thrd-party
mon, supposing that they have therein offered
n logically conclusive argument Apparently
they do not realize that their assertion, if true.
means that Prohibition never can prohibit III
t,uc IL means that officers elected by either OF
the great parties cannot be expected to perform
their sworn duties in the faithful enforcement
of law. That there are such officers in some
localities may be readily admitted. But it is
SANDER to say that the great body OF mcr
chosen by popular suffrage to public trust are
failhicss to the will Of the people and to their
sworn obligations. The third party should
take notice that SANDER is a sin as well rs
liquor selling.
In localities where prohbtOry law cannot
be enforced through officials elected by either
Of the great parties. the difficulty commonly IS
that public opinion does not support the law
and the majority Of the people refuse to en-
| force it, II is known to every practical man,
if the people will not gather evidence against
particular class Of law-brcakcrs. or will not as
iurymcn find offenders guilty on evidence which
would be held adequate in other cases, the best
and most faithful officials are powcrlcss to en-
force the law. In such localities Prohibition
would fail with third party officers, just as it
would fail with officers Of other parties. \
disagreement of jury defeats a prosecution, and
one iuryman out of ten, if he fails to credit the
evidence admitted, has power to prevent CON
viction. Punishment Of liquor selling through
criminal procedure. where trial by jury is guar
antccd therefore becomes impracticablc if
considerable proportion of the people refuse to
enforce the law. That difficulty is not rcmcdicd
bv the election Of officials rs Prohibition part
sans.
This is the fundamental objection to prohb
tory legislation in States where the people arc
not strongly in favor Of the measure Wherever
local option exists the strong majority in any
locality has corresponding power to enforce the
law il cnacts. But Il State law which is diSrc
cardcd in a large proportion Of the towns or
cities Of the State docs more harm than good,
because it brings all law into contempt. Pro-
hibition. where public opinion on the subject is
much divided. needs a dc>potsm to make it
work and in this country VIC have no dcspotiSm.
How would matters be improved if 4 third
party should elect Prohibition officials wherever
it could get majority Al other localities
having non approximation maloritcS would elect
oniciaiS opposed to the enforcement Of the law.
Even in the localities where m1iolilics for the
law exist, intense partisan feeling against 1t
would be aroused and would influence indi-
ydualS and particularly jurors # the minority.
The failure would be far more complete and
di,euccful than if officials we've chosen with
ort especial regard TO their opinions on this
subject. If non partisan prohibition cannot he
- tlnt
would be enforced still less. After ail. the
obstacle comes from the very nature Of free
government. which uccc->arly depends for en-
forcomcut u law upon the disposition Of the
people 90 enforce it.